Should people who want to kill millions for thoughtcrimes be

let us all live in peace

let us all live in peace

According to their own beliefs "I want to kill millions for thought crimes" which is a thought crime in and of itself then they should. However killing people for their thoughts is wrong, and the person's belief they should die for their thoughts is wrong therefore they should not be brutally killed. To brutally kill them would acknowledge their belief as correct which it is not.

>>38269816
Sadly there are countless people who want to brutally kill hundreds of millions of people for thoughtcrimes, the justification being "but they're disgusting". I'm not part of the targeted group but I've been reflecting a lot about this lately and am starting to lose my mind over this idiotic psychopathic thinking.

>>38269846
>"I want to kill millions for thought crimes"
But they don't say that and don't realize it's what they're basically saying.

>>38269802
"Human rights" are fake and gay
Millions should unironically be killed for thought crimes, because their thoughts translate into actions and poison society

Nah, send them to jail, put em to work in the prison industrial complex
Make any show or sign of fascist sympathy punishable with additional time, no parole
You either break them into a functional member of society or you get a lifelong indentured servant

>>38269921
Doesn't matter, either way their belief is wrong so why would you apply it to them whether they know it is their position or not.

>>38269941
>because their thoughts translate into actions [citation needed]

>>38269941
How would you really know their thoughts would translate into actions? If the person was thinking about shooting up a public place and you killed them you'd never know if they were going to actually do it or not and at that point you would be the murderer.

>>38269986
My citation is the society in which we live today, the one that allows free thought

File: dark_eldar__archon_3_by_beckjann-d6ov6vs.jpg (616KB, 1512x984px) Image search: [Google]

616KB, 1512x984px

>>38269921
What if you want to brutally torture and kill hundreds of millions of people for fun and amusement?

>>38270014
What society on this Earth allows free thought? You can see the ways in which free speech is limited that free thought is not allowed. If you don't believe me wear a swastika and go walk down the street shooting 'sieg heil'.

>>38270019
Then you're as evil as the people who want to kill millions for thoughts.

>>38270013
If they'd ever thought about it they deserve to die anyways. Why would you want somebody like that living among you?
>>38270050
Obviously there is no country that allows complete freedom of thought. But you know what I mean. And even your example is wrong. Flying the swastika is perfectly legal in America.

>>38270050
Allowing free thought and enabling free thought are very different things

>>38270083
What do you mean? Can you clarify?

>>38269802

What if millions of people think that? You would be executing most people yourself included by your own premise.

File: dgorhl9nxssy.png (273KB, 434x428px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 434x428px

>>38269802

>I see what you did there.
>Looks at replies.
>Anons are fucking idiots.

>>38270080
Fly it then to prove your point. These days they'll come up with a way to interpret the law by performing all kinds of legal gymnastics to make you take it down. Maybe they'll put you on a watch list, with the NSA spying on you. Are you really free to fly the swastika then? If you don't mind being watched or sued etc. What is legal is decided by the people of a country. If you don't know that then you haven't been to court. I've seen a judge completely disregard a law as something they don't follow anymore because he felt like it.

File: 148602743960578.jpg (160KB, 734x734px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 734x734px

>>38270175
>I see what you did there.
Really?

>>38270080
I'd be surprised if there were a single person on the planet who hasn't committed a crime in their mind. We'd all be dead.

>>38270080
Not to mention someone might take it upon themselves to remove your flag or physically attack you, in the USA or otherwise. Laws or no laws are you really free to fly the swastika? My example seems sound to me. I wouldn't be suprised if there were a law on the books these days that prohibits it, whether explicitly or through an adjacent kind of law like, hate crime laws.

File: 148602743960579.jpg (161KB, 734x734px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 734x734px

Should people be hurt for having "disgusting thoughts" that will never be translated into actions?

Can this be objectively (rather than emotionally) justified?

>>38270124
Sure. Allowing free thought should be self-explanatory; there are no restrictions against how or what you think. You won't be put in jail for expressing an idea or opinion.

Enabling free thought is done through education, and expands the scope of the individual's imagination and ability to think.

It's easy to live in a 'free' society when people are ignorant, uneducated, and fed propaganda, since although they're technically free to think, their thoughts aren't straying far from the herd.

>>38270520
So you think our education system enables free thought? And you think you won't be put in jail for expressing an idea or opinion? Negative repercussions whether legal or societal don't allow free thought and don't enable it. I might get chastised for saying this, then I better not think it just in case. I am not enabled, I am not allowed in either case.

>>38269802
People should be killed based on their skin color, not their thoughts

>>38270639
Living on this planet and witnessing the people of it for decades, I'd congratulate anyone for even having a thought no matter what it was.

>>38270051
How am I evil though? Evil is subjective. Maybe torturing and killing millions for fun is good? When televised it provides entertainment for viewers, and animals ca consume the leftover carcasses of the victims. Plants can use any remains for mulch.

>>38270680
>Evil is subjective
Hurting people who didn't significantly hurt others is objectively evil.

File: 1492034819210.png (138KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 499x499px

Who is going to be doing the killing?
Some frog posting hypocrite.

>>38270697
Their lives hurt the earth, think of the many animals and plants that died to sustain them. Think of the many insects they knowingly and unknowingly murdered in their lifetime. I doubt a roach could think I'm evil.

>>38270623
I don't think our education system enables free thought, at least not on a general scale. Pretty much the opposite, it's built to teach students what to think, not how.
The only opinions that will get you in trouble are those that could be taken as threats, like wishing the president was dead or that a stadium would get bombed. Even then the thought alone isn't enough to convict you generally, they need evidence of intent that your thoughts are becoming actions. Don't be a shithead and you won't get arrested
I don't know how you think you could ever not have social repercussions for the things you say. If the idea is important you'll learn to live with it, if not then you learn a lesson on the consequences of your actions